Contextual AI is an enterprise software company based in Mountain View, California. It develops a platform for building specialized Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) agents for enterprise use. The company was founded in 2023 by Douwe Kiela and Amanpreet Singh, both former AI researchers at Facebook AI Research (FAIR) and Hugging Face. Douwe Kiela previously led the Meta research team that introduced the Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) approach in 2020. Contextual AI focuses on enterprise generative AI applications using RAG 2.0 technology, with deployments primarily in the technology, banking, finance and media sectors. == History == In June 2023, Contextual AI announced it had raised $20 million in a seed funding round led by Bain Capital Ventures (BCV), with participation from Lightspeed Venture Partners, Greycroft, SV Angel, and several angel investors. In August 2024, the company raised $80 million in a Series A funding round led by Greycroft, with participation from previous investors including Bain Capital Ventures, Lightspeed, and Conviction Partners. The round also included new backers such as Bezos Expeditions, NVentures (Nvidia), HSBC Ventures, and Snowflake Ventures. == Features == Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) is an artificial intelligence framework that integrates information retrieval with text generation to improve the performance of large language models (LLMs) on complex, knowledge-intensive tasks. It was introduced in 2020 by researchers at Meta AI, including Douwe Kiela, Patrick Lewis and others, in their paper Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP Tasks. RAG enables language models to access and incorporate external information, such as proprietary databases or real-time web content, at query time, instead of relying solely on pre-trained, internal, static knowledge. This architecture addresses common limitations of standard LLMs, including hallucination, outdated information, and lack of attribution to source materials. RAG systems retrieve relevant context through a variety of techniques - including vector search, keyword search, text-to-SQL - and feeds this context into the language model to generate responses. The approach improves factual accuracy, supports domain-specific customization, enables citation of sources, and allows for more updated information without retraining the model itself. General Availability. In January 2025, Contextual AI announced the general availability of its enterprise platform for building specialized RAG agents. Early adopters included Qualcomm, which used the platform for their Customer Engineering team needs. Grounded Language Model. In March 2025, the company introduced a Grounded Language Model (GLM) for factual accuracy in enterprise AI applications. Reranker. In March 2025, Contextual AI released an instruction-following reranker that allows users to influence the ranking of retrieved documents through natural language instructions, such as prioritizing recent files, specific formats, or content from designated sources. == Applications == Contextual AI's platform has been adopted across a range of industries, including finance, technology, media and professional services. Clients include Fortune 500 companies such as Qualcomm and HSBC.
Manifold regularization
In machine learning, manifold regularization is a technique for using the shape of a dataset to constrain the functions that should be learned on that dataset. In many machine learning problems, the data to be learned do not cover the entire input space. For example, a facial recognition system may not need to classify any possible image, but only the subset of images that contain faces. The technique of manifold learning assumes that the relevant subset of data comes from a manifold, a mathematical structure with useful properties. The technique also assumes that the function to be learned is smooth: data with different labels are not likely to be close together, and so the labeling function should not change quickly in areas where there are likely to be many data points. Because of this assumption, a manifold regularization algorithm can use unlabeled data to inform where the learned function is allowed to change quickly and where it is not, using an extension of the technique of Tikhonov regularization. Manifold regularization algorithms can extend supervised learning algorithms in semi-supervised learning and transductive learning settings, where unlabeled data are available. The technique has been used for applications including medical imaging, geographical imaging, and object recognition. == Manifold regularizer == === Motivation === Manifold regularization is a type of regularization, a family of techniques that reduces overfitting and ensures that a problem is well-posed by penalizing complex solutions. In particular, manifold regularization extends the technique of Tikhonov regularization as applied to Reproducing kernel Hilbert spaces (RKHSs). Under standard Tikhonov regularization on RKHSs, a learning algorithm attempts to learn a function f {\displaystyle f} from among a hypothesis space of functions H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} . The hypothesis space is an RKHS, meaning that it is associated with a kernel K {\displaystyle K} , and so every candidate function f {\displaystyle f} has a norm ‖ f ‖ K {\displaystyle \left\|f\right\|_{K}} , which represents the complexity of the candidate function in the hypothesis space. When the algorithm considers a candidate function, it takes its norm into account in order to penalize complex functions. Formally, given a set of labeled training data ( x 1 , y 1 ) , … , ( x ℓ , y ℓ ) {\displaystyle (x_{1},y_{1}),\ldots ,(x_{\ell },y_{\ell })} with x i ∈ X , y i ∈ Y {\displaystyle x_{i}\in X,y_{i}\in Y} and a loss function V {\displaystyle V} , a learning algorithm using Tikhonov regularization will attempt to solve the expression arg min f ∈ H 1 ℓ ∑ i = 1 ℓ V ( f ( x i ) , y i ) + γ ‖ f ‖ K 2 {\displaystyle {\underset {f\in {\mathcal {H}}}{\arg \!\min }}{\frac {1}{\ell }}\sum _{i=1}^{\ell }V(f(x_{i}),y_{i})+\gamma \left\|f\right\|_{K}^{2}} where γ {\displaystyle \gamma } is a hyperparameter that controls how much the algorithm will prefer simpler functions over functions that fit the data better. Manifold regularization adds a second regularization term, the intrinsic regularizer, to the ambient regularizer used in standard Tikhonov regularization. Under the manifold assumption in machine learning, the data in question do not come from the entire input space X {\displaystyle X} , but instead from a nonlinear manifold M ⊂ X {\displaystyle M\subset X} . The geometry of this manifold, the intrinsic space, is used to determine the regularization norm. === Laplacian norm === There are many possible choices for the intrinsic regularizer ‖ f ‖ I {\displaystyle \left\|f\right\|_{I}} . Many natural choices involve the gradient on the manifold ∇ M {\displaystyle \nabla _{M}} , which can provide a measure of how smooth a target function is. A smooth function should change slowly where the input data are dense; that is, the gradient ∇ M f ( x ) {\displaystyle \nabla _{M}f(x)} should be small where the marginal probability density P X ( x ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {P}}_{X}(x)} , the probability density of a randomly drawn data point appearing at x {\displaystyle x} , is large. This gives one appropriate choice for the intrinsic regularizer: ‖ f ‖ I 2 = ∫ x ∈ M ‖ ∇ M f ( x ) ‖ 2 d P X ( x ) {\displaystyle \left\|f\right\|_{I}^{2}=\int _{x\in M}\left\|\nabla _{M}f(x)\right\|^{2}\,d{\mathcal {P}}_{X}(x)} In practice, this norm cannot be computed directly because the marginal distribution P X {\displaystyle {\mathcal {P}}_{X}} is unknown, but it can be estimated from the provided data. === Graph-based approach of the Laplacian norm === When the distances between input points are interpreted as a graph, then the Laplacian matrix of the graph can help to estimate the marginal distribution. Suppose that the input data include ℓ {\displaystyle \ell } labeled examples (pairs of an input x {\displaystyle x} and a label y {\displaystyle y} ) and u {\displaystyle u} unlabeled examples (inputs without associated labels). Define W {\displaystyle W} to be a matrix of edge weights for a graph, where W i j {\displaystyle W_{ij}} is a similarity built from distance measure between the data points x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} and x j {\displaystyle x_{j}} (so that more close implies higher W i j {\displaystyle W_{ij}} ). Define D {\displaystyle D} to be a diagonal matrix with D i i = ∑ j = 1 ℓ + u W i j {\displaystyle D_{ii}=\sum _{j=1}^{\ell +u}W_{ij}} and L {\displaystyle L} to be the Laplacian matrix D − W {\displaystyle D-W} . Then, as the number of data points ℓ + u {\displaystyle \ell +u} increases, L {\displaystyle L} converges to the Laplace–Beltrami operator Δ M {\displaystyle \Delta _{M}} , which is the divergence of the gradient ∇ M {\displaystyle \nabla _{M}} . Then, if f {\displaystyle \mathbf {f} } is a vector of the values of f {\displaystyle f} at the data, f = [ f ( x 1 ) , … , f ( x l + u ) ] T {\displaystyle \mathbf {f} =[f(x_{1}),\ldots ,f(x_{l+u})]^{\mathrm {T} }} , the intrinsic norm can be estimated: ‖ f ‖ I 2 = 1 ( ℓ + u ) 2 f T L f {\displaystyle \left\|f\right\|_{I}^{2}={\frac {1}{(\ell +u)^{2}}}\mathbf {f} ^{\mathrm {T} }L\mathbf {f} } As the number of data points ℓ + u {\displaystyle \ell +u} increases, this empirical definition of ‖ f ‖ I 2 {\displaystyle \left\|f\right\|_{I}^{2}} converges to the definition when P X {\displaystyle {\mathcal {P}}_{X}} is known. === Solving the regularization problem with graph-based approach === Using the weights γ A {\displaystyle \gamma _{A}} and γ I {\displaystyle \gamma _{I}} for the ambient and intrinsic regularizers, the final expression to be solved becomes: arg min f ∈ H 1 ℓ ∑ i = 1 ℓ V ( f ( x i ) , y i ) + γ A ‖ f ‖ K 2 + γ I ( ℓ + u ) 2 f T L f {\displaystyle {\underset {f\in {\mathcal {H}}}{\arg \!\min }}{\frac {1}{\ell }}\sum _{i=1}^{\ell }V(f(x_{i}),y_{i})+\gamma _{A}\left\|f\right\|_{K}^{2}+{\frac {\gamma _{I}}{(\ell +u)^{2}}}\mathbf {f} ^{\mathrm {T} }L\mathbf {f} } As with other kernel methods, H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} may be an infinite-dimensional space, so if the regularization expression cannot be solved explicitly, it is impossible to search the entire space for a solution. Instead, a representer theorem shows that under certain conditions on the choice of the norm ‖ f ‖ I {\displaystyle \left\|f\right\|_{I}} , the optimal solution f ∗ {\displaystyle f^{}} must be a linear combination of the kernel centered at each of the input points: for some weights α i {\displaystyle \alpha _{i}} , f ∗ ( x ) = ∑ i = 1 ℓ + u α i K ( x i , x ) {\displaystyle f^{}(x)=\sum _{i=1}^{\ell +u}\alpha _{i}K(x_{i},x)} Using this result, it is possible to search for the optimal solution f ∗ {\displaystyle f^{}} by searching the finite-dimensional space defined by the possible choices of α i {\displaystyle \alpha _{i}} . === Functional approach of the Laplacian norm === The idea beyond the graph-Laplacian is to use neighbors to estimate the Laplacian. This method is akin to local averaging methods, that are known to scale poorly in high-dimensional problems. Indeed, the graph Laplacian is known to suffer from the curse of dimensionality. Luckily, it is possible to leverage expected smoothness of the function to estimate thanks to more advanced functional analysis. This method consists of estimating the Laplacian operator using derivatives of the kernel reading ∂ 1 , j K ( x i , x ) {\displaystyle \partial _{1,j}K(x_{i},x)} where ∂ 1 , j {\displaystyle \partial _{1,j}} denotes the partial derivatives according to the j-th coordinate of the first variable. This second approach to the Laplacian norm is to put in relation with meshfree methods, that contrast with the finite difference method in PDE. == Applications == Manifold regularization can extend a variety of algorithms that can be expressed using Tikhonov regularization, by choosing an appropriate loss function V {\displaystyle V} and hypothesis space H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} . Two commonly used examples are the families of support vector machines and regularized least squares algorithm
Really Simple Licensing
Really Simple Licensing (RSL) is an open content licensing standard that allows web publishers to set terms for web crawlers gathering training data for generative AI use. It was launched on September 10, 2025 and is managed by the nonprofit RSL Collective, co-founded by RSS co-creator Eckart Walther and former Ask.com CEO Doug Leeds. Participating companies at launch include Reddit, Yahoo, and Medium. Publishers can implement the RSL standard by adding licensing terms to their robots.txt files.
Blackboard system
A blackboard system is an artificial intelligence approach based on the blackboard architectural model, where a common knowledge base, the "blackboard", is iteratively updated by a diverse group of specialist knowledge sources, starting with a problem specification and ending with a solution. Each knowledge source updates the blackboard with a partial solution when its internal constraints match the blackboard state. In this way, the specialists work together to solve the problem. The blackboard model was originally designed as a way to handle complex, ill-defined problems, where the solution is the sum of its parts. == Metaphor == The following scenario provides a simple metaphor that gives some insight into how a blackboard functions: A group of specialists are seated in a room with a large blackboard. They work as a team to brainstorm a solution to a problem, using the blackboard as the workplace for cooperatively developing the solution. The session begins when the problem specifications are written onto the blackboard. The specialists all watch the blackboard, looking for an opportunity to apply their expertise to the developing solution. When someone writes something on the blackboard that allows another specialist to apply their expertise, the second specialist records their contribution on the blackboard, hopefully enabling other specialists to then apply their expertise. This process of adding contributions to the blackboard continues until the problem has been solved. == Components == A blackboard-system application consists of three major components The software specialist modules, which are called knowledge sources (KSs). Like the human experts at a blackboard, each knowledge source provides specific expertise needed by the application. The blackboard, a shared repository of problems, partial solutions, suggestions, and contributed information. The blackboard can be thought of as a dynamic "library" of contributions to the current problem that have been recently "published" by other knowledge sources. The control shell, which controls the flow of problem-solving activity in the system. Just as the eager human specialists need a moderator to prevent them from trampling each other in a mad dash to grab the chalk, KSs need a mechanism to organize their use in the most effective and coherent fashion. In a blackboard system, this is provided by the control shell. === Learnable Task Modeling Language === A blackboard system is the central space in a multi-agent system. It's used for describing the world as a communication platform for agents. To realize a blackboard in a computer program, a machine readable notation is needed in which facts can be stored. One attempt in doing so is a SQL database, another option is the Learnable Task Modeling Language (LTML). The syntax of the LTML planning language is similar to PDDL, but adds extra features like control structures and OWL-S models. LTML was developed in 2007 as part of a much larger project called POIROT (Plan Order Induction by Reasoning from One Trial), which is a Learning from demonstrations framework for process mining. In POIROT, Plan traces and hypotheses are stored in the LTML syntax for creating semantic web services. Here is a small example: A human user is executing a workflow in a computer game. The user presses some buttons and interacts with the game engine. While the user interacts with the game, a plan trace is created. That means the user's actions are stored in a logfile. The logfile gets transformed into a machine readable notation which is enriched by semantic attributes. The result is a textfile in the LTML syntax which is put on the blackboard. Agents (software programs in the blackboard system) are able to parse the LTML syntax. == Implementations == We start by discussing two well known early blackboard systems, BB1 and GBB, below and then discuss more recent implementations and applications. The BB1 blackboard architecture was originally inspired by studies of how humans plan to perform multiple tasks in a trip, used task-planning as a simplified example of tactical planning for the Office of Naval Research. Hayes-Roth & Hayes-Roth found that human planning was more closely modeled as an opportunistic process, in contrast to the primarily top-down planners used at the time: While not incompatible with successive-refinement models, our view of planning is somewhat different. We share the assumption that planning processes operate in a two-dimensional planning space defined on time and abstraction dimensions. However, we assume that people's planning activity is largely opportunistic. That is, at each point in the process, the planner's current decisions and observations suggest various opportunities for plan development. The planner's subsequent decisions follow up on selected opportunities. Sometimes, these decision-sequences follow an orderly path and produce a neat top-down expansion as described above. However, some decisions and observations might also suggest less orderly opportunities for plan development. A key innovation of BB1 was that it applied this opportunistic planning model to its own control, using the same blackboard model of incremental, opportunistic, problem-solving that was applied to solve domain problems. Meta-level reasoning with control knowledge sources could then monitor whether planning and problem-solving were proceeding as expected or stalled. If stalled, BB1 could switch from one strategy to another as conditions – such as the goals being considered or the time remaining – changed. BB1 was applied in multiple domains: construction site planning, inferring 3-D protein structures from X-ray crystallography, intelligent tutoring systems, and real-time patient monitoring. BB1 also allowed domain-general language frameworks to be designed for wide classes of problems. For example, the ACCORD language framework defined a particular approach to solving configuration problems. The problem-solving approach was to incrementally assemble a solution by adding objects and constraints, one at a time. Actions in the ACCORD language framework appear as short English-like commands or sentences for specifying preferred actions, events to trigger KSes, preconditions to run a KS action, and obviation conditions to discard a KS action that is no longer relevant. GBB focused on efficiency, in contrast to BB1, which focused more on sophisticated reasoning and opportunistic planning. GBB improves efficiency by allowing blackboards to be multi-dimensional, where dimensions can be either ordered or not, and then by increasing the efficiency of pattern matching. GBB1, one of GBB's control shells implements BB1's style of control while adding efficiency improvements. Other well-known of early academic blackboard systems are the Hearsay II speech recognition system and Douglas Hofstadter's Copycat and Numbo projects. Some more recent examples of deployed real-world applications include: The PLAN component of the Mission Control System for RADARSAT-1, an Earth observation satellite developed by Canada to monitor environmental changes and Earth's natural resources. The GTXImage CAD software by GTX Corporation was developed in the early 1990s using a set of rulebases and neural networks as specialists operating on a blackboard system. Adobe Acrobat Capture (now discontinued), as it used a blackboard system to decompose and recognize image pages to understand the objects, text, and fonts on the page. This function is currently built into the retail version of Adobe Acrobat as "OCR Text Recognition". Details of a similar OCR blackboard for Farsi text are in the public domain. Blackboard systems are used routinely in many military C4ISTAR systems for detecting and tracking objects. Another example of current use is in Game AI, where they are considered a standard AI tool to help with adding AI to video games. == Recent developments == Blackboard-like systems have been constructed within modern Bayesian machine learning settings, using agents to add and remove Bayesian network nodes. In these 'Bayesian Blackboard' systems, the heuristics can acquire more rigorous probabilistic meanings as proposal and acceptances in Metropolis Hastings sampling though the space of possible structures. Conversely, using these mappings, existing Metropolis-Hastings samplers over structural spaces may now thus be viewed as forms of blackboard systems even when not named as such by the authors. Such samplers are commonly found in musical transcription algorithms for example. Blackboard systems have also been used to build large-scale intelligent systems for the annotation of media content, automating parts of traditional social science research. In this domain, the problem of integrating various AI algorithms into a single intelligent system arises spontaneously, with blackboards providing a way for a collection of distributed, modular natural language processing algorithm
Computer-assisted legal research
Computer-assisted legal research (CALR) or computer-based legal research is a mode of legal research that uses databases of court opinions, statutes, court documents, and secondary material. Electronic databases make large bodies of case law easily available. Databases also have additional benefits, such as Boolean searches, evaluating case authority, organizing cases by topic, and providing links to cited material. Databases are available through paid subscription or for free. Subscription-based services include Westlaw, LexisNexis, JustCite, HeinOnline, Bloomberg Law, Lex Intell, VLex and LexEur. As of 2015, the commercial market grossed $8 billion. Free services include OpenJurist, Google Scholar, AltLaw, Ravel Law, WIPO Lex, Law Delta and the databases of the Free Access to Law Movement. == Purposes == Computer-assisted legal research is undertaken by a variety of actors. It is taught as a topic in many law degrees and is used extensively by undergraduate and postgraduate law students in meeting the work requirements of their degree courses. Professors of Law rely on the digitization of primary and secondary sources of law when conducting their research and writing the material that they submit for publication. Professional lawyers rely on computer-assisted legal research in order to properly understand the status of the law and so to act effectively in the best interest of their client. They may also consult the text of case judgements and statutes specifically, as well as wider academic comment, in order to form the basis of (or response to) an appeal. The availability of legal information online differs by type, jurisdiction and subject matter. The types of information available include: Texts of statutes, statutory instruments, civil codes, etc. Explanatory notes and government publications relating to statutes and their operation Texts of governing documents such as constitutions and treaties Case judgements Journals on legal matters or legal theory Dictionaries and legal encyclopedia Legal texts and materials in the form of e-books Current affairs and market information Educational information on the law and its operation == Before the Internet == Prior to the advent and popularization of the World Wide Web, access to digital legal information was largely through the use of CD-ROMs, designed and sold by commercial organizations. Dial-up services were also available from the 1970s. As the use of the Internet spread in the early 1990s, companies such as LexisNexis and Westlaw incorporated Internet connectivity into their software packages. Browser-based legal information started to be published by Legal Information Institutes from 1992. == Publicly available information == The first effort to provide free computer access to legal information was made by two academics, Peter Martin and Tom Bruce, in 1992. Today, the Legal Information Institute freely publishes such resources as the text of the United States Constitution, judgements of the United States Supreme Court, and the text of the United States Code. The Australasian Legal Information Institute (AusLII) was established soon after in 1995. Other legal information institutes, such as those of Great Britain and Ireland (BAILII), Canada (CII) and South Africa (SAfLI) soon followed. LIIs were partially formalized in 2002 following the signing of the Declaration of Free Access to the Law, which has been signed by 54 countries. At the time of writing, the World Legal Information Institute contains in excess of 1800 databases from 123 jurisdictions. Many governments also publish legal information online. For example, UK legislation and statutory instruments have been publicly available online since 2010. Depending on the jurisdiction in question, the decisions of higher appellate courts may also be published online, either by the Legal Information Institute or by the court service directly. Sources of European Union Law are published for free by EUR-Lex in 23 languages, including judgments of the European Courts. Similarly, judgements of the European Court of Human Rights are published on its website.
Attack path management
Attack path management is a cybersecurity technique that involves the continuous discovery, mapping, and risk assessment of identity-based attack paths. Attack path management is distinct from other computer security mitigation strategies in that it does not rely on finding individual attack paths through vulnerabilities, exploits, or offensive testing. Rather, attack path management techniques analyze all attack paths present in an environment based on active identity management policies, authentication configurations, and active authenticated "sessions" between objects. == Overview == Attack path management relies on concepts such as mapping and removing attack paths, identifying attack path choke points, and remediation of attack paths. Identity-based attacks are present in most publicly disclosed breaches, whether through social engineering to gain initial access to Active Directories or lateral movement for privilege escalation. Attackers require privileges to attack an environment’s most sensitive segments. Attack path management often involves removing out-of-date privileges and privilege assignments given to overly large groups. In attack path management, attack graphs are used to represent how a network of machines’ security is vulnerable to attack. The nodes in an attack graph represent principals and other objects such as machines, accounts, and security groups. The edges in an attack graph represent the links and relationships between nodes. Some nodes are easy to penetrate due to short paths from regular users to domain admins, resulting in focal points of concentrated network traffic, which are known as attack path choke points. Attack graphs are often analyzed using algorithms and visualization. Attack path management also identifies tier 0 assets, which are considered the most vulnerable because they have direct or indirect control of an Active Directory or Microsoft Entra ID environment.
Legal expert system
A legal expert system is a domain-specific expert system that uses artificial intelligence to emulate the decision-making abilities of a human expert in the field of law. Legal expert systems employ a rule base or knowledge base and an inference engine to accumulate, reference and produce expert knowledge on specific subjects within the legal domain. == Purpose == It has been suggested that legal expert systems could help to manage the rapid expansion of legal information and decisions that began to intensify in the late 1960s. Many of the first legal expert systems were created in the 1970s and 1980s. Lawyers were originally identified as primary target users of legal expert systems. Potential motivations for this work included: quicker delivery of legal advice; reduced time spent in repetitive, labour-intensive legal tasks; development of knowledge management techniques that were not dependent on staff; reduced overhead and labour costs and higher profitability for law firms; and reduced fees for clients. Some early development work was oriented toward the creation of automated judges. One of the first use cases was the encoding of the British Nationality Act at Imperial College carried out under the supervision of Marek Sergot and Robert Kowalski. Lance Elliot wrote: "The British Nationality Act was passed in 1981 and shortly thereafter was used as a means of showcasing the efficacy of using Artificial Intelligence (AI) techniques and technologies, doing so to explore how the at-the-time newly enacted statutory law might be encoded into a computerized logic-based formalization." The authors’ seminal article, "The British Nationality Act as a Logic Program," published in 1986 in the Communications of the ACM journal, is one of the first and best-known works in computational law, and one of the most widely cited papers in the field. In 2021, the Inaugural CodeX Prize was awarded to Robert Kowalski, Fariba Sadri, and Marek Sergot in acknowledgment of their groundbreaking work on the application of logic programming to the formalization and analysis of the British Nationality Act. Later work on legal expert systems has identified potential benefits to non-lawyers as a means to increase access to legal knowledge. Legal expert systems can also support administrative processes, facilitate decision-making processes, automate rule-based analyses, and exchange information directly with citizen-users. == Types == === Architectural variations === Rule-based expert systems rely on a model of deductive reasoning that utilizes "If A, then B" rules. In a rule-based legal expert system, information is represented in the form of deductive rules within the knowledge base. In rule-based legal expert systems, logic programming has historically been applied to automate complex compliance paperwork. A notable early example designed for high-volume regulatory filings was the 1999 Intelligent Filing Manager (INTELLIFM), which utilized Prolog rules as its core inference engine to automate the generation, publishing, and population of structured forms via distributed COM interfaces. Case-based reasoning models, which store and manipulate examples or cases, hold the potential to emulate an analogical reasoning process thought to be well-suited for the legal domain. This model effectively draws on known experiences our outcomes for similar problems. A neural net relies on a computer model that mimics that structure of a human brain, and operates in a very similar way to the case-based reasoning model. This expert system model is capable of recognizing and classifying patterns within the realm of legal knowledge and dealing with imprecise inputs. Fuzzy logic models attempt to create 'fuzzy' concepts or objects that can then be converted into quantitative terms or rules that are indexed and retrieved by the system. In the legal domain, fuzzy logic can be used for rule-based and case-based reasoning models. === Theoretical variations === Some legal expert system architects have adopted a very practical approach, employing scientific modes of reasoning within a given set of rules or cases. Others have opted for a broader philosophical approach inspired by jurisprudential reasoning modes emanating from established legal theoreticians. === Functional variations === Some legal expert systems aim to arrive at a particular conclusion in law, while others are designed to predict a particular outcome. An example of a predictive system is one that predicts the outcome of judicial decisions, the value of a case, or the outcome of litigation. == Reception == Many forms of legal expert systems have become widely used and accepted by both the legal community and the users of legal services. == Challenges == === Domain-related problems === The inherent complexity of law as a discipline raises immediate challenges for legal expert system knowledge engineers. Legal matters often involve interrelated facts and issues, which further compound the complexity. Factual uncertainty may also arise when there are disputed versions of factual representations that must be input into an expert system to begin the reasoning process. === Computerized problem solving === The limitations of most computerized problem solving techniques inhibit the success of many expert systems in the legal domain. Expert systems typically rely on deductive reasoning models that have difficulty according degrees of weight to certain principles of law or importance to previously decided cases that may or may not influence a decision in an immediate case or context. === Representation of legal knowledge === Expert legal knowledge can be difficult to represent or formalize within the structure of an expert system. For knowledge engineers, challenges include: Open texture: Law is rarely applied in an exact way to specific facts, and exact outcomes are rarely a certainty. Statutes may be interpreted according to different linguistic interpretations, reliance on precedent cases or other contextual factors including a particular judge's conception of fairness. The balancing of reasons: Many arguments involve considerations or reasons that are not easily represented in a logical way. For instance, many constitutional legal issues are said to balance independently well-established considerations for state interests against individual rights. Such balancing may draw on extra-legal considerations that would be difficult to represent logically in an expert system. Indeterminacy of legal reasoning: In the adversarial arena of law, it is common to have two strong arguments on a single point. Determining the 'right' answer may depend on a majority vote among expert judges, as in the case of an appeal. === Time and cost effectiveness === Creating a functioning expert system requires significant investments in software architecture, subject matter expertise and knowledge engineering. Faced with these challenges, many system architects restrict the domain in terms of subject matter and jurisdiction. The consequence of this approach is the creation of narrowly focused and geographically restricted legal expert systems that are difficult to justify on a cost-benefit basis. Current applications of AI in the legal field utilize machines to review documents, particularly when a high level of completeness and confidence in the quality of document analysis is depended upon, such as in instances of litigation and where due diligence play a role. Among the numerically most quantifiable advantages of AI in the legal field are the time and money saving impact by freeing lawyers from having to spend inordinate amounts of their valuable time on routine tasks, aiding in setting free lawyers’ creative energy by reducing stress. This in turn increases the rate of case load reduction by accomplishing better results in less time, which unlocks potential additional revenue per unit of time spend on a case. The cost of setting up and maintaining AI systems in law is more than offset by the attained savings through increased efficacy; unbalanced cost can be assigned to clients. === Lack of correctness in results or decisions === Legal expert systems may lead non-expert users to incorrect or inaccurate results and decisions. This problem could be compounded by the fact that users may rely heavily on the correctness or trustworthiness of results or decisions generated by these systems. == Examples == ASHSD-II is a hybrid legal expert system that blends rule-based and case-based reasoning models in the area of matrimonial property disputes under English law. CHIRON is a hybrid legal expert system that blends rule-based and case-based reasoning models to support tax planning activities under United States tax law and codes. JUDGE is a rule-based legal expert system that deals with sentencing in the criminal legal domain for offences relating to murder, assault and manslaughter. Legislate is a knowledge graph powered contract management platform whi